Limitation Philosophy sees all non-physical reality as emergent from physical reality and utilizes operational definitions to frame its theology, so it is objective in its general character.
The Human Being as an Object
We ourselves as individual persons are much more than objects, but sometimes there is educational value in setting aside the larger aspects such as personality and look at our human being as an object.
Taking a wide view our being is local, temporal and discrete. The essence of limited being is this broad, inclusive objective observation of the nature of our being.
Limitation Philosophy says about human being:
Discrete, having boundaries it exists as a whole thing in itself.
Temporal, has a beginning, and ending, existing for a period of time.
Local, exists at one place in spacetime during its lifetime.
So, a human being is an object that can be the subject of scientific study.
Organismic Wholes Compared to Machines
A metaphorical allusion is made to human made mechanisms when explaining how an illness affects a human body and what a medical treatment does to ‘fix’ it. Obviously our bodies are not machines and organisms are not at all like machines but a limited similarity makes the metaphor useful.
Our bodies are not made from interchangeable parts. A few of our organs can be transplanted but most cannot. Sickness in one area tends to affect the whole and marshal resources to the problem area. These are just a few of the many physical aspects of embodiment and its processes that make us unified living organisms.
Our personalities too are unified in ways that make their parts inseparable from the whole. We talk about thoughts as pure intellect but few, if any, thoughts are unadulterated fact spoken with complete emotional indifference and devoid of any intention. Heart, mind and will sound like three distinct things, but in practical reality they operate only within a unified personality, and never do so in isolation.
Limitation Philosophy talks about mind having subjective and objective faculties. These are not separable things. Observations communicated with clarity have a powerful aspect of objectivity, but we often conclude these statements with the words, “that’s the way I see it.” Human subjectivity is inescapable. It’s part of human being.
The Value of Objectivity
It takes effort, and requires sustained commitment to setting our persistent subjectivity to one side, but keeping things limited to observation and physical fact is sometimes necessary to get to the truth of a matter.
For once the theologian is going to have to think like a scientist and consider deity as an object observed for a time with ones inescapable human subjectivity consciously set aside.
To get to the truth God must be considered as an object of scientific inquiry and a conscious sustained setting aside of of the subjective aspects of human cognition must be maintained from the premise of the inquiry to its conclusions.
God can and should be examined with all the objectivity we can muster if we are to get at the facts of the matter.
This can and should be done.
A Third Party Definition of Anthropomorphizing
From Claire Parkinson, Animals, Anthropomorphism and Mediated Encounters.
A Practical Observation from Antiquity
The aspect of projection is fairly intuitive, and is generally understood. Projection is basic to our understanding of the activity of anthropomorphizing, but the ‘intersubjectivity’ this more technical definition illuminates is far less well understood.
Intersubjectivity: What it is, where it fails and where it succeeds.
In the mechanics of anthropomorphizing, ones subjectivity as a cognitive faculty is meshed with the subjectivity of the object being anthropomorphized. This mental process in the person who is anthropomorphizing is intersubjectivity.
Because intersubjectivity is “wholly in the mind,” it is by nature not physical reality, except as a cognitive process. As one might expect, there is a lot of space for error to be produced by such an imaginative process. One might even jump to the conclusion that, anthropomorphism leads only to error and be, for the most part, correct in that assumption.
Looking at Intersubjectivity
The subjected subjective, my feelings, my thoughts, my intentions. The object is subjected to a transformation, what I believe I would think about an experience becomes the objects experience (in my mind). Reality is subject to my interpretation of things.
The interpreted subjective, is where the non-human personality is interpreted as thinking, feeling and intending as a human would. A dog, cat or chimpanzee does not have a human personality and there is no logical or factual basis to suppose that they think, feel or are motivated by the same kind of thoughts, feelings and motivations that a human has. Our human personalities are not lenses into the personalities of non-humans. They barely function well within our own species and if two different humans don’t think and feel alike there really is no basis for believing we can see into non-human personality thru that lens.
NOTE 1: There is no reason to believe a limitless mind would operate the way a limited one does. The apparatus for thinking is not the same and the processes of omniscient mind require different processes to produce omniscient thought, which is unlikely to be in the form of discrete temporal thoughts like we have.
NOTE 2: An animals embodied personality has values of its own that cannot be understood by imposing human values onto it. Hunger is hunger, but appetite makes its experience subjective to the individual being in spacetime.
The structural subjective, has being as I do. Embodiment and the homeostatic processes associated with organismic physical being, alongside a heart, mind and will personality emerging from the experience of embodied existence. Being is being, at least in its structural sense. The similarities become strained when extended out to the boundless being of God. Embodiment as a concept implies boundary, so boundlessness becomes a difficult, perhaps inscrutable concept. Necessary to the logic of limitless deity it proves intractable once serious inquiry is undertaken. (Anyone who believes boundlessness is comprehensible has not really explored it in depth, or they would not believe that. I’m not a mathematician, and perhaps a good mathematician could prove me wrong. Please enlighten me if that is the case.)
Fails:
Interpretive and subjective represent illogical assumptions.
Succeeds:
Like me, animals think, feel and act from intention. In general, being has a structure that frames all embodied beings. Because we share the experience of embodied being and emergent personality some understanding of other non-human beings and a theory of a divine being can be discerned. This is general information, in the form of observation that is foundational to an understanding of being. Looking at ourselves we can observe the structure of being and see it framing other living organisms existing as embodied beings, despite their being different in every other way from us.
There are some real obstacles, most of them within ourselves, but non-human beings can be considered objectively if we consciously keep subjectivity out of the process.
Observation and Human Objectivity
Looking at God as an object
An Object Like No Other
In The Logic of Limitless there is a pervasive theme that perception hides reality. This concept is discussed from many angles but I never say WHY perception hides reality. Follow this logic:
IF, the ultimate reality is God, whose physical being is embodied by the particle universe.
Then, all perception is from within, and like looking at a building from inside one of its rooms, which is impossible
So, perception from within reality cannot the whole that contains it.
And in conclusion, God as Ultimate Reality will not as an object be understood by perception. Logic and reasoning must replace sight, and some humility must be operating in us since we are, trying to see the outside of a building from inside of that building.
Limited results must be expected, and what can be found ought to be treated as provisional truth. We will get much closer to the truth than the ordinary theists using anthropomorphism, but complete unquestionable truth is not a result an inquiry like this can ever expect. We are positing a Deity that might exist, not one that could not exist. We abandon a fanciful belief in the physically impossible for a reasoned belief in the reasonably probable.
As the character Anaxagoras, in the Logic of Limitation, observed,
“I am a scientist,” says Anaxagoras, “I never could believe in the gods, even as a child, later on when it seemed the universe had a mind of its own I called that mind Nous. I did not call it God nor did I consider Nous to be a personality. I find Eleazar’s doctrine of Limitless Personality intriguing because of its grounding in physical reality and logical consistency. However, I retain a considerable degree of skepticism. As a scientist I study it only as an exercise in scientific inquiry that is worthy of my time. My skepticism and dislike for religion prejudice me against belief in super human beings but Eleazar’s theological cosmology seems to explain many things. Despite much initial doubt I cannot to my satisfaction falsify it with logic.”
“Without even giving up my skepticism and prejudice the perspective is useful. Unlike other descriptions of the gods Eleazar’s philosophical system has sensible application to understanding the realities of human life. The nature of a theoretically Limitless Personality provides accurate information that would not be available without the theory. It gives us a unique window into human behavior and sheds valuable light on the sources of much psychological malfunction. The definition of Limitless Personality is a true plumb line that gives us an unwavering perspective on human personality.”
Socrates says, “And that makes the logical understanding of Limitless Personality valuable whether or not it describes an actual being?”
“Yes, it does,” says Anaxagoras, “Without a plumb line to check each course masonry soon goes awry.”
Socrates looking at Eleazar says, “so only you are a true believer in this monotheistic Deity?”
Eleazar says, “the word monotheism is very troublesome to define. Would you care to tell us your definition of it so we may better understand what you mean when you say it? The adopting the form of Socratic questioning Eleazar asks, “Socrates, what is monotheism?”
The Character of Skepticism in Limitation Philosophy
Skepticism is rooted in the limitations of local, temporal and discrete being. We understand nothing in the truly complete way a limitless mind would understand things. Our understanding is partial, limitless mind relates all things together.
So, Limitation Philosophy’s skepticism is not based in distrust of ourselves or others, rather its based in acceptance of the reality of limited being.
There is also an epistemological skepticism based in the limitation and foibles of human language.
“Perhaps, I ought to clarify what I mean by limited. Limited compared to what? Compared to other men? I may know more than many men and less than many others but compared to Limitless Deity my knowledge is limited by more than quantity alone. In some ways it does not exist at all. The stuff I call knowledge, the ‘things’ I know, are all seen upon careful analysis to be mere beliefs.
To Socrates Eleazar says, “In reality, I know nothing, as you have proven time and again.”
“Finally, another man who knows he knows nothing,” says Socrates.
“I also know why I know nothing. Why, I only believe things,” says Eleazar.
“Consider the logical consequences of how so-called human knowledge operates. Our man believes he knows a thing, but does he? To truly know this one thing, he would also need to have complete knowledge of every other thing related to it. Which in turn means, our man would need to have complete knowledge of everything related to those other things also. This operation taken to its logical conclusion shows that to know any one thing our man must know everything.”
Socrates says, “because I don’t possess complete knowledge of everything, I truly know nothing. I am a mere creature of belief. My thoughts and feelings, my determinations and desires are all based on very limited understandings, they are all beliefs. Incomplete understanding is belief, not knowledge.”
Eleazar says, “And considered in that light, real operational knowledge is impossible to limited minds. We claim to know things but look at the operation we use to know things. Our beliefs conceive things, independent things, salient things, things we abstract using our subjective perception. Perception relies on the processes of abstraction to create a perceived world of salient things, but concrete things are not salient. In true physical reality all things are related. Each to one another in the infinite and eternal universe of matter.”
“This is why the atomism of Leucippus is so suitable to an operational definition of omniscience. The mind of limitless Deity has on the one hand a subjective orientation. The subjective functioning of the mind of God corresponds with every particle in the infinite and eternal universe. This ever-present active coordination with the minutest aspect of every particle of physical reality is the substance of operational omniscience. Alongside subjective particle awareness are the operations characteristic of objectivity in the mind of God.”
“The Personality of Limitless Deity is aware of the particle universe functioning as a whole thing and the synergy which causes all the interrelated parts of physical reality to work together. The complimentary operations of subjective and objective orientations in the Personality of Limitless Deity result in a holistic understanding of reality in its entirety, and for our logical purposes this is an operational definition of omniscience. Every single part of the universe is forever organized as a coherent whole, understood as a whole, by a mind whose operations realize that understanding. Real knowledge is complete knowledge.”
Eleazar pauses a moment and says, “operational omniscience follows from the cognitive operations within the mind of God. God knows, because God can know. Man believes because that is all he can do.”
From LOGIC OF LIMITLESS by Anaxagoras Pen (Thomas Laperriere)
Omniscience as Operational
The operational explanation of omniscience, and commitment to other operational explanations demonstrates the objective character of Limitation Philosophy, and the cosmology it presents.
The greatest failing of theologians is seen in their use of the word, attributes. Is a person ever kind because someone says they are? They may indeed be kind, but it will not be the result of kindness being attributed to them. Kindness must follow naturally from the operations of their personality, so logical point number one is that things like omniscience, omnipotence, etcetera must follow from the operations of the Deity’s personality and being.
What operations would result in omniscience? This has a fairly simple answer, but I did not explain boundless embodiment from the start as I intended to. God is an embodied being. Disembodied personalities exist only in fiction, in reality, personality is by nature an embodied thing. Personality operates over time in embodied beings, so logical point number two is that God, contrary to the mental image of a humanlike spirit which many people construct, is an embodied being. The boundless universe is the material stuff of God’s being, and particle processes are the life of God’s being.
Boundlessness is a difficult concept for any bounded being to contemplate. My suggesting a boundless body, even for an eternal and infinite Deity, might not be accepted by your perceptions. For now, please accept it provisionally so you can follow my thinking.
There is quite a lot to being that I cannot get into now, and this explanation is I admit, very deficient, but it will have to suffice for now.
Logical point number three, limitless mind operates subjectively and objectively. It perceives all things as related within itself and understands them from a unitary perspective of the whole. With boundless spacetime this gives the word complete a whole new meaning. Consider as bits of understanding, subjective mental apprehension of every individual atom, the subatomic particles it consists of and the movement within each atom’s structure. Add to this a boundless understanding of the forces that operate in particle reality and you get total subjective apprehension of all physical reality. Couple this with a holistic operational understanding and use of this information and you have practical omniscience. No mere attribute, omniscience is essential in the operations of God’s personality.
I may have lost you on the details but I gather you get the point of practical omniscience, so logical point number four, limitless volition and emotion follows from the operations of omniscience. Having complete boundless knowledge whatever God’s intentions are they cannot be thwarted, and being of unthwartable intention we can reasonably assume God’s emotional disposition to be benevolent, or at least free of negative feeling.
The intellect, emotion, and volition structure of God’s Limitless Personality isn’t anthropomorphic because this mind, heart, and will structure is found in all living things. Pond slime knows when the sun is shining and when it is not. Pond slime loves the sun and grows by intention towards it. Personality structure is basic to all living things everywhere in the world, so it’s reasonable to assume its presence in the nature of limitless personality. The intellect, emotion, and volition personality structure essential to functionality in all living things is inherent in the nature of the universe.
The intellectual content, emotional nature, and the actual intentions of the Limitless Personality of God which I just outlined are by nature inscrutable to limited personalities like ours. Only a limitless mind could comprehend the thoughts of a limitless mind. Only a personality without the experience of negative emotions could understand the emotional nature of a personality characterized by limitless emotion. Unthwartable volition is nothing at all like our own, so we cannot hope to guess it by self-reference.
The general structure of God’s personality can be outlined, but its contents are inscrutable to us, not because we lack enlightenment, but because of who we are and Who God Is.
From THANK YOU, MR. DARWIN by Anaxagoras Pen (Thomas Laperriere)
Emergence and Limitless Personality
Structure in the non-physical universe
Socrates says, “you’re advancing further than your present argument supports. What about structure in non-physical things? Abstract things are all instances of structure, but they are not made of elemental atoms. Where does their structure come from?”
Eleazar says, “that depends on what sort of non-physical things we are talking about. There are abstract things which are human creations made of language, such as archegete and monotheism. These language abstractions arise from a physical context of operations. Separated from that context they become cyphers. There are other things that emerge from physical reality and exist as abstract realities. These are real non-physical things. They have reality independent of human language but their reality is fully dependent on the physical situation from which they emerge. In this group are number, sum, and the foundational realities of structure, movement and function.”
Socrates says, “I wish to discuss the abstract things that exist independent of our thought and words.”
Eleazar says, “keep in mind that I will be using language to describe them. These things exist as real things apart from words and thought, but to discuss them we must use words and thought.”
Socrates says, “I can see the sense of that. We shall use the words made for these things to discuss them.”
Eleazar says, “all abstract realities are grounded in physical reality. Abstract things such as number arise from physical reality. Proper use of language requires us to keep abstractions of every kind grounded in physical things because everything real about them has a physical origin. Number has its origins in collections of things and so do sub-concepts derived from number, such as sum. A sum is the total number of things in one or more collections subjected to a mathematical operation. Sum is an example of an abstract thing being grounded in operations involving real or potential physical things. Likewise, geometry is the abstract description of real or potential physical objects. Abstract realities emerge from the physical universe. The structure of non-physical realities emerges from their relationship to the universe of physical things. Abstract things get their structure from the real or potential physical things from which they emerge.”
Personality Emerges from the Particle Level
Eleazar says, “In the world of things, structure and function translate upwards. Things get their structure from the atoms they consist of, but a things function is not the sum of the atoms it consists of, instead its function is to be the thing it is. Emergent Wholeness is now seen in the things function, to be the whole thing it is. It is the nature of every greater than the sum of its parts thing to function as the thing it is. Function on this level emerges from the collective particle movement within the structures of all its atoms. So the single function of being a thing emerges from all the distinct instances of particle movement within all of its atomic structures. Being is not some sort of random accident. It is the result of the processes I am calling Emergent Wholeness operating at the particle level enabling whole things to come to be and function as the things they are. All being is embodied being, be it inert or living.
Alcibiades asks, “what is it that makes one thing living and another thing inert? What causes life?”
Eleazar says, “life is caused by the same operations that form inert things, the combination of its physical atoms into functional being, but in living things function in the form of a purposeful homeostatic personality emerges and operates processes that maintain the life of the organism.”
“Atomic structure and particle level movement make us reconsider the word thriving and to what things it applies. Particle movement drives the continuous operations going on in the matter a thing consists of. So, beneath the appearances of perception inert things thrive. The inert things being emerges from the collective function of all its atoms and in this way it purposefully thrives as the thing it is. At the particle level an imperceptible thriving underlies the nature of inert things as well as the living.”
“Living beings are collections of atoms from whose collective structure and movement a purposeful homeostatic personality emerges. An instance of homeostatic personality emerges as function from the collective movement within the physical beings atomic structure. An instance of homeostatic personality is a real abstract thing but the visual meaning of the word emerge must be avoided here because all personality is embodied. In one very limited sense an instance of personality is an autonomous thing, but operationally it is intertwined with the living things physical being. Personality as a real abstract thing is coincident with the collection of atoms it emerges from, and its emergence is an ongoing process. Life is a process, born of function, thriving and purpose operating at the particle level. Life is an operation of Emergent Wholeness that happens when the collective function of a physical thing animates it with homeostatic personality.
“In very simple organisms this personality is entirely homeostatic and one must strain to see the rudiments of personality in its operation but they are there. We don’t give an individual pond slime cell a name and keep it as a pet but the living purposes that keep it alive are organized according to the life principle of mind, heart and will personality structure.”
“Personality is the fourth foundational reality. Rocks do not have a homeostatic personality but the lichens growing on them do.”
Alcibiades chuckles, flexes his muscles and says, “I am the rock.”
Eleazar says, “no, you are Alcibiades, because that is who emerges from the present collection of atoms you consist of.”
Socrates says, “I think I understand. Is it correct to say that Alcibiades’ personality is an instance of Emergent Wholeness, the abstract foundational reality we are calling personality emerging as an embodied personal being? In your cosmology is Alcibiades’ personality a non-physical thing operating coincidentally with his physical aspect.”
“Yes,” says Eleazar, “and that is a good way to begin rethinking personality from what it is conventionally conceived as being. From there we can begin thinking about what personality really is.”
“In conventional thinking human personality is the conscious self. What we think, the feelings we express, the desires we experience, and the determinations formed by our conscious self. In conventional thinking the strongest manifestations of our conscious self are our intentions. In everyday social life we use the intentions we perceive in others as a basis for meaningful interaction with them. A heuristic perspective like this is useful for living in the moment but because all heuristics generate error it is not useful for philosophical discernment.”
“Much of our complete personality is not available to our conscious mind. The homeostatic part of our personality is subconscious. Our conscious self knows we are breathing, but only pays attention to breathing when it has reason to. The homeostatic part of our personality pays attention to every breath. It’s a different form of paying attention. It’s an aspect of human personality characterized by consistency rather than change. The homeostatic personality maintains stability as our bodies age and our personalities evolve. The sole intention of the homeostatic personality is to maintain our being.”
“The conscious self is diverse. One day it’s ambitious, the next day it’s lazy. Is that who we really are? Because the conscious personality is reined in by the homeostatic personality, which is the more valid conscious self, the one reined in or the one gone off to some temporary extreme? Aren’t we much more the homeostatic personality that keeps the conscious personality alive? Perception is enthralled by the dramatic conscious self and this enthrallment hides the deeper reality of who we really are. The less dramatic aspects of personality may not single us out as individuals but they do play the more substantial role in our being what we are.”
“To form an accurate idea of what personality really is we need to examine where it comes from and how it develops. Personality has its origin in atoms combining into things that get their structure from the atoms they consist of. For a concrete example let’s look at Socrates. The abstract personal entity which is Socrates’ personality has organized itself within and as a result of the physical entity that is Socrates’ body.”
“The human being, Socrates, began developing in his mother’s womb and has been moving through time since then. The life of Socrates has been a bodily process coincident and corresponding with the processes of his homeostatic personality. Within Socrates’ body, as it grew, the conscious personality of Socrates developed.”
“Individual human life is a single unified process involving both physical and non-physical aspects of being. The subconscious personality of Socrates regulates and is regulated by bodily functions. The homeostatic personality and the homeostatic bodily processes corresponding to it maintain the balances necessary to his physical and psychological life. On the conscious level Socrates experiences the universe as an individual human being moving bodily through time and space. He is shaped by this experience which is also in many ways shaped by him.”
“Being a conscious person what he feels about his experiences has a crucial role in shaping his own personality. Alongside every bodily experience is a conscious mind, heart and will interfacing with itself and the world. The conscious personality processes the details of life while the homeostatic personality operates the organism.”
“The abstract inner realities of personality emerge from embodied experiences and so do complex social realities. Socrates, son of Sophroniscus, being the physical offspring of Sophroniscus, relates to his father physically before anything else. All the social realities of their relationship emerge from the physical relationship of their embodied beings. All the social realities of our very complex cultures emerge from the relationships of embodied human beings to one another. Our understanding of every social phenomenon must be grounded in the realities of embodied beings to be meaningful. Embodied human beings are the atoms of social reality.”
“The non-physical processes of Socrates’ being are coincident with and correspond to physical processes. Thus, the physical bodies development, all the life processes of Socrates’ body and its movement through spacetime are the primary means by which the conscious personality of Socrates comes to be. The crucial reality in the creation of Socrates, the human being, are the lifelong processes of embodied being. The same processes in another body created Alcibiades and both of you are individual personalities by reason of your separate physical beings and separate life processes.”
Personality the Fourth Foundational Reality
“The individual self is shaped by many diverse processes resulting in an individual human personality, a strangely hard-edged non-physical thing. As a hard-edged abstraction conscious human personality is unique because it is the opposite of one single thing. Structure is structure, number is number, and other hard-edged abstract entities are likewise one consistent thing but not personality. Conscious human personality is a world of disparate cognitions continuously self-organizing into an individual personal identity characterized by mind, heart and will. There are reflective aspects of our conscious personality that play a small role but these are only a tiny part of the self-organization that operates within our being. Personality structure is a special form of purposeful organization which in operation creates an individual identifiable self that has a discernable outline. I’ll never struggle to see where the personality of Socrates ends, and the personality of Alcibiades begins. The complex processes that make this possible are the mysterious personality organizing operations of Emergent Wholeness.”
“We see the results of this organizing principle in all the various instances of personality. The self-organizing processes of personality formation operate similar to practical omniscience, where a greater than sum objective whole operates by subjective awareness of the parts. Thus, limited personality is formed into a greater than sum whole from a limited set of parts, while the universal process forms Limitless Personality from a limitless set, that is from everything in all time. From this perspective the distinction between Limitless and limited personality is seen in substantial empirical terms. The holistic operations of personality emergence are informed by function emerging from every atom of the beings physical aspect and the organizational principle that I have been calling personality operates using that. Personality is a very small common word for something vast and incomprehensible when we begin thinking of it in this way, but it’s the only word we have for it.”
“Function is at the heart of being. Every inert thing exists to be what it is. Every living thing strives homeostatically to be what it is. Every conscious being strives to be the individual that it is. We see the rudiments of this in animals and it finds its fuller expression in conscious human personality. As operations of Emergent Wholeness, being and personality emerge from processes operating at the particle level. That may sound simplistic but in operation it’s infinitely and eternally complex.”
“Personality, homeostatic and conscious, is the fourth foundational reality. Like structure, movement and function personality’s role as a foundational reality is treated as an underlying assumption in conventional heuristic thinking. Humans are social by nature and adept at using a vast array of interpersonal heuristics. Ordinary social functioning in human societies is intuitive, and complex. Being heuristic by nature our social abilities hobble accurate philosophical calculation.”
“Like so many other things we have discussed today looking beneath the common underlying assumptions is key to understanding the processes of reality. Our own individual personality pervades our understanding of the universe so we never question our own individuality. We know we are distinct and assume everyone else is too. If this were not the case, individuality would be regarded as miraculous. Personality structure as part of the processes of Emergent Wholeness has a foundational role in the process of living things coming to be, existing for a time and passing away. By analyzing the foundational role of personality in the processes of reality we can recognize the homeostatic nature of the universe and begin to see the particle universe as the physical aspect of God’s Being.”
Alcibiades says, “I grasp what you are saying but I am not sure observations about the operations that create our personalities can be extended out to the entire universe.”
Socrates says, “Alcibiades makes a good point. Unlike a concrete mathematical principle which can be proven, personality as an organizing principle is very abstract.”
Eleazar says, “yes, personality is an abstract thing and the complexity of particle mapping even the most simple embodied human being for even a brief period of time would be daunting if not impossible but that is not our only source of proof.”
“As we did with structure, movement and function, fiction can be used to test whether personality is a foundational reality or not. A fictional world without structure is impossible and so is one where there are living characters without mind, heart and will personality structure. Aries, might be said to be without feeling, but this is just an allusion to the sentiments of the god of war being unlike our own. Personality is a more diverse entity than structure, movement or function so a storyteller could create a character without will, a sort of ultimate slave, but that characters fictionally nonexistent will would prove the experiment by its conspicuous absence. In any world, fictional or real, where social beings operate, mind, heart and will personality structure will be a foundational reality.”
From THE LOGIC OF LIMITLESS, by Anaxagoras Pen (Thomas Laperriere)